Facts

Sharon Stephenson sought judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of her application for benefits. On Feb. 4, 2019, a Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation, recommending that the Commissioner's denial of benefits and ALJ's supporting decision be reversed and the matter remanded.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Stephenson claimed that the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation should be affirmed and the matter should be remanded with direction to pay benefits.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant objected to the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation, contending the report improperly gave controlling weight to the opinions of three treating sources and Stephenson's subjective symptom statements, and merely came to a different conclusion than the Administrative Law Judge. Defendant also contended the ALJ reasonably gave greater weight to reviewing sources' opinions, which were well supported and consistent with the record. Further, defendant alleged the ALJ reviewed and evaluated the evidence in a broad context considering all relevant evidence in Stephenson's record, and the Magistrate Judge improperly accepted Stephenson's subjective symptom statements wholesale.

Result

The court agreed with the recommendations of the Magistrate Judge, reversed the decision of the ALJ, and remanded the matter for payment of benefits. Specifically, the court found the ALJ's decision to give controlling weight to reviewing source opinions and give less weight to Stephenson's treating providers was neither legally sufficient nor supported by substantial evidence. Additionally, the court found the ALJ ignored significant and probative evidence, and failed to evaluate the evidence in a broad context. The court also concluded the ALJ's determination that Stephenson was employed part-time as a caretaker was used erroneously to find she had a higher capacity for public interactions than Stephenson alleged, so her statements should have been admitted.